Posted on 04/01/2018 9:05:49 AM PDT by Simon Green
Over the decades, this quiet coastal hamlet has earned a reputation as one of the most liberal places in the nation. Arcata was the first U.S. city to ban the sale of genetically modified foods, the first to elect a majority Green Party city council and one of the first to tacitly allow marijuana farming before pot was legal.
Now it's on the verge of another first.
No other city has taken down a monument to a president for his misdeeds. But Arcata is poised to do just that. The target is an 8½-foot bronze likeness of William McKinley, who was president at the turn of the last century and stands accused of directing the slaughter of Native peoples in the U.S. and abroad.
"Put a rope around its neck and pull it down," Chris Peters shouted at a recent rally held at the statue, which has adorned the central square for more than a century.
Peters, who heads the Arcata-based Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous People, called McKinley a proponent of "settler colonialism" that "savaged, raped and killed."
A presidential statue would be the most significant casualty in an emerging movement to remove monuments honoring people who helped lead what Native groups describe as a centuries-long war against their very existence.
The push follows the rapid fall of Confederate memorials across the South in a victory for activists who view them as celebrating slavery. In the nearly eight months since white supremacists marched in central Virginia to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, cities across the country have yanked dozens of Confederate monuments. Black politicians and activists have been among the strongest supporters of the removals.
This time, it's tribal activists taking charge, and it's the West and California in particular leading the way.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I’ve been very civil, unlike certain discourteous statist morons.
I would imagine no more drunk or antisemitic than you.
Of course you have.
Try to sound more sincere the next time you lie. Who knows - you may actually manage to deceive them.
“...but gradually the South matured to generally allow freedom to live in peace and pursue prosperity...”
Yes, that’s the point. It would happened naturally within the next 10-20 years without the loss of half million plus lives. Industrial revolution.
The only Jews I dislike are atheist Jews in name only who are most often leftist activists, you know, the sort of people you agree with on this matter.
As far as drunk, I spent a good ten years hitting bars every night, had a great time, drank too much, spent too much, put too many miles on my liver. It’s been over a decade since that time. I’ll have a mixed drink every now and then with friends but that’s it, don’t even keep it in my house. Never did, really.
And you? You sound a little in your cups already, slinging “moron” in every reply.
So you ARE a drunken antisemitic. Thought so...
Ooh, don’t you just sound all preachy ‘n stuff after the smoke you’ve been blowing, lol.
Nailed it! In the same fashion as the colonies were traitors to the crown or as was Scotland.
Nope. My business partner is Jewish, several of my customers are, my best friend in college was. I have no issue with observant Jews whatsoever. Atheist ones, meh, not so wild about them. There was a time when you could have fairly called me a drunk, but a high-functioning one. Same as Grant, but I didn’t kill en masse or go all Ferdinand and Isabella and expel anybody.
“God bless William T. Sherman - the right man for the job.”
Hitler copied it well in Poland...scorched earth.
“The primary cause, as enunciated by the slaver’s themselves, was the Peculiar Institution. All other considerations took a far distant second place to slavery.”
Mierda de toro. Don’t advertise your lack of study.
Show me where I’m bullspitting.
Nice! “Some of my best friends are Negroes” At least admitting your deficiencies are the first steps toward overcoming them.
“Why? One of those marines actually was an Indian. “
I know..a Pima. They will get around to the indians eventually. They were noble in their own way and democrats can’t tolerate that.
“What Lincoln did to the south was almost a bad as what the south did to africans.”
Odd, I’m not aware of the south killing 700,000 Africans.
Lincoln didn’t kill 700,000 Africans either.
How very quaint—and patently false.
The Emancipation Proclamation —which freed all the slaves—was issued on January 1, 1863 (during the War). So how did Slavery become the scapegoat after the War again? Seems like it was a pretty important cause during the Civil War—and indeed before it.
The notion that slavery was made into a scapegoat after the war is simply ridiculous on its face. Indeed, the Abolition of Slavery was heavily used as a "righteous cause" to justify the Northern prosecution of the Civil War—and to convince Northern mothers to send their sons off to fight it.
Thus, the idea that the Civil War primarily "was fought on the grounds of tariffs imposed by DC" is the veritable height of revisionist pro-Confederate propaganda, and cannot be effectively argued by any serious Civil War authority...
You’ll have to specify which statement. It becomes impossible to follow on this forum when I can’t see which post you’re responding to.
Knew it, there comes the leftist, I throw out the bait teachable moment and here it comes. Had you pegged better than I knew.
So, was Grant merely a drunk, or was he an antisemite drunk? No one seems willing to take that one on for some reason, despite historical documentation. Too far off your plantation, I guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.